Limbaugh would support the Democrat

Rush Limbaugh will join Ann Coulter on the Democratic bandwagon if John McCain gets the Republican nomination. That’s right. As McCain’s nomination gets ever more likely, Rush will agitate for the Democrats .That ALONE is nearly reason enough to vote for McCain, the spectacle of Ann and Rush championing Hillary Clinton! All of the ire against Ann Coulter would no longer go against Republicans but against Democrats. The Democrats would finally get the talk radio presence they crave, and it’s the Rush Limbaugh Show.

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

I was listening to local Catholic radio last night and a host was saying that he was waiting for Dr. Dobson and other Christian political leaders to give them guidance and name a third-party candidate to write in. I am very disturbed to hear Christians talk of not casting a vote. Would they really prefer Obama or Clinton for president??? They would serve the country better by at least casting a vote AGAINST someone.

http://bestronginthegrace.blogspot.com Theresa K.

I was listening to local Catholic radio last night and a host was saying that he was waiting for Dr. Dobson and other Christian political leaders to give them guidance and name a third-party candidate to write in. I am very disturbed to hear Christians talk of not casting a vote. Would they really prefer Obama or Clinton for president??? They would serve the country better by at least casting a vote AGAINST someone.

Richard

McCain Derangement Syndrome. Sigh.

Richard

McCain Derangement Syndrome. Sigh.

http://www.stpeterswaterford.com Rev. F. Bischoff

Perhaps this makes clear what I have asserted all along — that Limbaugh and Coulter are entertainers and celebrities. While I have often agreed with them, they are no more qualified to speak on issues than Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, or Tim Robbins. Those who always took their views with a grain of salt are not in the least bit moved by their grandstanding. Those who hung on their every word are now very confused.

http://www.stpeterswaterford.com Rev. F. Bischoff

Perhaps this makes clear what I have asserted all along — that Limbaugh and Coulter are entertainers and celebrities. While I have often agreed with them, they are no more qualified to speak on issues than Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, or Tim Robbins. Those who always took their views with a grain of salt are not in the least bit moved by their grandstanding. Those who hung on their every word are now very confused.

ORS

This may go to prove just how out of touch with the people these pundits really are. Fame and money change a person. These talkers start out being able to relate well with the common conservative folk, but over time they lose touch with reality. Some faster than others! The funny thing is that they still claim to be in step with us commoners! They’re flabbergasted when everybody they thought they represented are voting a different way. Goes to show you that in the end, you have to make your own decision based on what matters to you. And here’s to Mike Huckabee who is running a surprisingly successful campaign on a shoestring! It’s refreshing to know that you can’t always buy an election (sorry Mitt Romney).

ORS

This may go to prove just how out of touch with the people these pundits really are. Fame and money change a person. These talkers start out being able to relate well with the common conservative folk, but over time they lose touch with reality. Some faster than others! The funny thing is that they still claim to be in step with us commoners! They’re flabbergasted when everybody they thought they represented are voting a different way. Goes to show you that in the end, you have to make your own decision based on what matters to you. And here’s to Mike Huckabee who is running a surprisingly successful campaign on a shoestring! It’s refreshing to know that you can’t always buy an election (sorry Mitt Romney).

organshoes

I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that Rush will agitate for the Democrats in the same way as Ann Coulter. I think perhaps you revised and extended his remarks, and their intent, quite unfairly. Last night’s tornadoes were a perfect metaphor for the current political frenzy. Personally, I find Rush to be about the bravest spokesperson in politics right now; certainly braver and more articulate than any of the candidates, or any pundit. It should be abundantly clear that his cause–his candidate all along–has been conservatism itself, and his lament, and mine, is that there is no conservative candidate. There is no single issue on the table that isn’t kicked out of the ballpark by the application of conservative ideals. But people are less and less swayed by such ideals, no matter how much, in their hearts, they know they’re right. The candidates have taken on–the people have imbued them with–god-like abilities, expecting them, the candidates, to solve those problems and wrestle those issues to the ground, and have left ideology and its ideals wasting on the vine. But, it’s only politics, and not religion. I only wish we the people put as much fervor into defending our confession of faith, as in our pursuit of political ends.

organshoes

I don’t see how you came to the conclusion that Rush will agitate for the Democrats in the same way as Ann Coulter. I think perhaps you revised and extended his remarks, and their intent, quite unfairly. Last night’s tornadoes were a perfect metaphor for the current political frenzy. Personally, I find Rush to be about the bravest spokesperson in politics right now; certainly braver and more articulate than any of the candidates, or any pundit. It should be abundantly clear that his cause–his candidate all along–has been conservatism itself, and his lament, and mine, is that there is no conservative candidate. There is no single issue on the table that isn’t kicked out of the ballpark by the application of conservative ideals. But people are less and less swayed by such ideals, no matter how much, in their hearts, they know they’re right. The candidates have taken on–the people have imbued them with–god-like abilities, expecting them, the candidates, to solve those problems and wrestle those issues to the ground, and have left ideology and its ideals wasting on the vine. But, it’s only politics, and not religion. I only wish we the people put as much fervor into defending our confession of faith, as in our pursuit of political ends.

http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce

These two will support Hillary in the same way that Alec Baldwin “left the country” after Bush was elected.

http://www.pagantolutheran.blogspot.com Bruce

These two will support Hillary in the same way that Alec Baldwin “left the country” after Bush was elected.

Bror Erickson

I think the pundits are beginning to take it a little too personal when others disagree with them over who should be president.

Bror Erickson

I think the pundits are beginning to take it a little too personal when others disagree with them over who should be president.

organshoes

I love this. Conservatives sniping at one another. This is the end, my friend (invoking McCain, not Jim Morrison). Brought to you by ourselves.

organshoes

I love this. Conservatives sniping at one another. This is the end, my friend (invoking McCain, not Jim Morrison). Brought to you by ourselves.

“Here’s the quote: “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama, or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit rather than a Republican causing the debacle, and I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the House and Congress paralyzed by having to support out of party loyalty a Republican president who is not conservative.” I also added one thing that I don’t think Mr. Kurtz put in. I said, “Let me give you an example. If Senator McCain is serious about adopting the left’s policies and prescriptions to fix the hoax of manmade global warming, an economic disaster will result. I don’t want Republicans getting credit for an economic disaster; given one of the central legs of conservatism and that stool I keep talking about, is fiscal conservatism. But I see Schwarzenegger signing on to it, and I see Schwarzenegger endorsing McCain,” but the word that’s being misinterpreted — this is not Kurtz’s fault. It’s nobody else’s fault. I should have been a little bit more specific. “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama, or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit rather than the Republicans cause the debacle.” By “if,” I meant it’s unknown yet. It’s in the future. This is February, folks. The general election is November, and what I meant when I told this to Howard Kurtz, “if,” parentheses, “down the road I think…” It’s an open question yet, and yet everybody reading this thinks that I’ve just said, “Screw it! I’m voting Hillary or Obama.” That’s not what that meant to say. I clarify it. “

“Here’s the quote: “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama, or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit rather than a Republican causing the debacle, and I would prefer not to have conservative Republicans in the House and Congress paralyzed by having to support out of party loyalty a Republican president who is not conservative.” I also added one thing that I don’t think Mr. Kurtz put in. I said, “Let me give you an example. If Senator McCain is serious about adopting the left’s policies and prescriptions to fix the hoax of manmade global warming, an economic disaster will result. I don’t want Republicans getting credit for an economic disaster; given one of the central legs of conservatism and that stool I keep talking about, is fiscal conservatism. But I see Schwarzenegger signing on to it, and I see Schwarzenegger endorsing McCain,” but the word that’s being misinterpreted — this is not Kurtz’s fault. It’s nobody else’s fault. I should have been a little bit more specific. “If I believe the country will suffer with either Hillary, Obama, or McCain, I would just as soon the Democrats take the hit rather than the Republicans cause the debacle.” By “if,” I meant it’s unknown yet. It’s in the future. This is February, folks. The general election is November, and what I meant when I told this to Howard Kurtz, “if,” parentheses, “down the road I think…” It’s an open question yet, and yet everybody reading this thinks that I’ve just said, “Screw it! I’m voting Hillary or Obama.” That’s not what that meant to say. I clarify it. “

Booklover

Although I crave the same conservative ideals that Rush does, I can’t bear to listen to him. (My dear hubby, on the other hand, hangs on Rush’s every word. In fact, he could almost be Rush’s twin, except that he is perhaps more kind-hearted.) Rush is a true conservative, but he is above all an entertainer. I believe that perhaps he’s had three wives because he only talks, never listens. Children can’t listen to his show, because he’s forever making nasty references such as “bend over and grab your ankles.” Young women are given the idea that they must abandon raising their children and run for office now; because if they wait until they’re 60, they will be too ugly. It is sad to hear him talk about how Hillary is too ugly to be President. I appreciate his pro-life views, and I believe he is quite intelligent; but most of the time I feel he abandons any religious or spiritual values and makes everything entirely political, and that just is not what life is about.

Booklover

Although I crave the same conservative ideals that Rush does, I can’t bear to listen to him. (My dear hubby, on the other hand, hangs on Rush’s every word. In fact, he could almost be Rush’s twin, except that he is perhaps more kind-hearted.) Rush is a true conservative, but he is above all an entertainer. I believe that perhaps he’s had three wives because he only talks, never listens. Children can’t listen to his show, because he’s forever making nasty references such as “bend over and grab your ankles.” Young women are given the idea that they must abandon raising their children and run for office now; because if they wait until they’re 60, they will be too ugly. It is sad to hear him talk about how Hillary is too ugly to be President. I appreciate his pro-life views, and I believe he is quite intelligent; but most of the time I feel he abandons any religious or spiritual values and makes everything entirely political, and that just is not what life is about.

S Bauer

So conservatism’s fundamental idea of politics, as Rush puts it, is not striving for the common good of the citizens of the United States but making sure the other side “takes the hit” when things tank?

S Bauer

So conservatism’s fundamental idea of politics, as Rush puts it, is not striving for the common good of the citizens of the United States but making sure the other side “takes the hit” when things tank?

organshoes

But then, Booklover, you don’t listen to him. It’s hard to know who someone really is, and what they really say, let alone what they mean, if you don’t listen to him. Even Lutherans tell me Luther was a raging anti-Semite. Of course, they never really read Luther, nor considered context nor anything else. Just operated from some presumption of someone else. It’s conventional wisdom–herd-thought; neither wisdom nor thought at all. It’s so easy for everyone to find someone else to dump their conservative wrath upon–Limbaugh, Coulter, McCain, one another–rather than to face the fact that a conservative is not going to win the White House, no matter which party wins. Vote as you wish, as your conscience directs, or not at all. But don’t expect everyone to be convinced of any current candidate’s conservatism, because what a conservative actually is in not in play here; only gaining an office is in play. If we say we are guided by conservative principles, but won’t adhere to the law on borders and citizenship, or to our Christian conscience about embryonic stem cells and marriage, or demand consistency from a candidate’s words and deeds, then we deceive ourselves, and the truth of being a conservative is not in us. So be it. Admit you’re looking for a winner, not so much a conservative standard-bearer. Since there is none. And possibly looking for a scapegoat when the election is lost. Rush Limbaugh will not suffice as that scapegoat–only in your minds.

organshoes

But then, Booklover, you don’t listen to him. It’s hard to know who someone really is, and what they really say, let alone what they mean, if you don’t listen to him. Even Lutherans tell me Luther was a raging anti-Semite. Of course, they never really read Luther, nor considered context nor anything else. Just operated from some presumption of someone else. It’s conventional wisdom–herd-thought; neither wisdom nor thought at all. It’s so easy for everyone to find someone else to dump their conservative wrath upon–Limbaugh, Coulter, McCain, one another–rather than to face the fact that a conservative is not going to win the White House, no matter which party wins. Vote as you wish, as your conscience directs, or not at all. But don’t expect everyone to be convinced of any current candidate’s conservatism, because what a conservative actually is in not in play here; only gaining an office is in play. If we say we are guided by conservative principles, but won’t adhere to the law on borders and citizenship, or to our Christian conscience about embryonic stem cells and marriage, or demand consistency from a candidate’s words and deeds, then we deceive ourselves, and the truth of being a conservative is not in us. So be it. Admit you’re looking for a winner, not so much a conservative standard-bearer. Since there is none. And possibly looking for a scapegoat when the election is lost. Rush Limbaugh will not suffice as that scapegoat–only in your minds.

B. Bunch

Dr. James Dobson appeared to push his way to let other Christians and the general public know what he thinks. While he has contributed much, I believe he has out lived his usefulness in getting into politics. It is one thing to have an opinion on a blog or write where the reader or the audience seeks opinions, but on Dennis Prager, yesterday, it was apparent that the “evangelical power” play was his motivation.

Sadly, the non thinking “evangelical” will buy into their fearless moral leader. Morality is not everything, salvation is.

B. Bunch

Dr. James Dobson appeared to push his way to let other Christians and the general public know what he thinks. While he has contributed much, I believe he has out lived his usefulness in getting into politics. It is one thing to have an opinion on a blog or write where the reader or the audience seeks opinions, but on Dennis Prager, yesterday, it was apparent that the “evangelical power” play was his motivation.

Sadly, the non thinking “evangelical” will buy into their fearless moral leader. Morality is not everything, salvation is.

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Seems like so much scare tactics from the lip-flappers to drive as many votes as possible to Romney. But as it’s too late to turn the tide from McCain, this take-my-ball-and-go-home-ism also serves Rush’s self interest.

The way I see it, Rush couldn’t bear to change his mind and support McCain. He’s sunk too much into maligning him, and it’s not in Rush’s character to make nice or hint that he was wrong. So he’s doing everything he can to make sure McCain either loses the nomination (doubtful) or wins it by as little a margin as possible.

Assuming the latter, Rush then goes on to frame things such that, if McCain loses, he still remains influential: “I told you he was terrible, and I was against him the whole time! You all should have listened to Rush!” The worst-case scenario for Rush is that McCain wins the nomination and the presidency, because then Rush is shown to be either wrong or not influential. And since his career is based on perceptions to the contrary, that’s no good.

Myself, the only Rush I listen to involves Canadians playing 13/8.

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Seems like so much scare tactics from the lip-flappers to drive as many votes as possible to Romney. But as it’s too late to turn the tide from McCain, this take-my-ball-and-go-home-ism also serves Rush’s self interest.

The way I see it, Rush couldn’t bear to change his mind and support McCain. He’s sunk too much into maligning him, and it’s not in Rush’s character to make nice or hint that he was wrong. So he’s doing everything he can to make sure McCain either loses the nomination (doubtful) or wins it by as little a margin as possible.

Assuming the latter, Rush then goes on to frame things such that, if McCain loses, he still remains influential: “I told you he was terrible, and I was against him the whole time! You all should have listened to Rush!” The worst-case scenario for Rush is that McCain wins the nomination and the presidency, because then Rush is shown to be either wrong or not influential. And since his career is based on perceptions to the contrary, that’s no good.

Myself, the only Rush I listen to involves Canadians playing 13/8.

http://www.LutheranLucciola.blogspot.com Lutheran Lucciola

I can’t believe there are people who still listen to Rush, and “conservative” radio.

Folks, McClinton is going to be president. It’s already a done deal. This is what happens when you vote for lesser of two evils.

And with that, I am done with politics. For Lent, and possibly forever.

http://www.LutheranLucciola.blogspot.com Lutheran Lucciola

I can’t believe there are people who still listen to Rush, and “conservative” radio.

Folks, McClinton is going to be president. It’s already a done deal. This is what happens when you vote for lesser of two evils.

And with that, I am done with politics. For Lent, and possibly forever.

Another Kerner

As mentioned previously, Wisconsin has an Open Primary. Here Republicans have the option to vote in the Democratic column.

Such a Primary system provides the Wisconsin voter the option to cast a ballot for the *least” electable and/or least likeable candidate in the oppostion Party.

Republicans here, if there is no serious contest in the Republican column, often “cross-over” into the Democratic Primary in order to help the Democrats choose their candidate…….. ….that is, the candidate who, in their view, will be the easiest individual for the Republican to defeat in the General Election.

Pragmatic? Yes.

Is it a double edged sword? Yes.

Conversely, Democratic voters are able to cross-over into the Republican Primary and similarly act as a “spoiler”.

The serious question which faces all “conservative” voters this year is a simple one.

How much of a compromise and erosion of dearly held convictions can be considered tolerable when voting for a Presidential candidate in the political arena?

Which candidate? Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B? Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee?

The uncompromsing among us might like to suggest the possibility that when making a choice between two evils that: ………”the lesser of two evils is still evil”……

Therein rests a part of our challenge.

Additionally, perhaps we should be careful then, when we indict our fellow “conservatives” if and when they make the choice not to vote in any given election, or choose to vote for a person who is least offensive to them.

In their view, there may be no singular moral choice available to them.

Are there any among us who have not needed to compromise a vote or who have not made a pragmatic choice in the voting booth? Deciding to vote for a reason other than firm conviction?

And, perhaps we should be reluctant to call some of the “talk show” radio folks “just entertainers”.

They are no less or no more thoughtful commentators than those who write their opinions in political and religious columns in newspapers and magazines all across this country.

They all address the issues in their chosen formats with the talent the Lord provided them.

Some months ago I suggested on this that I may need to retire to my attic on election day, with my Bible, my Book of Concord, and the 12 gauge (or a hand gun whose caliber begins with the numeral “4″ or greater).

Organshoes has even suggested that she may join me in the attic. She further promised to bring the coffee and brownies.

Alas….. I confess I do not know just what I shall do on election day.

Another Kerner

As mentioned previously, Wisconsin has an Open Primary. Here Republicans have the option to vote in the Democratic column.

Such a Primary system provides the Wisconsin voter the option to cast a ballot for the *least” electable and/or least likeable candidate in the oppostion Party.

Republicans here, if there is no serious contest in the Republican column, often “cross-over” into the Democratic Primary in order to help the Democrats choose their candidate…….. ….that is, the candidate who, in their view, will be the easiest individual for the Republican to defeat in the General Election.

Pragmatic? Yes.

Is it a double edged sword? Yes.

Conversely, Democratic voters are able to cross-over into the Republican Primary and similarly act as a “spoiler”.

The serious question which faces all “conservative” voters this year is a simple one.

How much of a compromise and erosion of dearly held convictions can be considered tolerable when voting for a Presidential candidate in the political arena?

Which candidate? Socialist Party A or Socialist Party B? Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dee?

The uncompromsing among us might like to suggest the possibility that when making a choice between two evils that: ………”the lesser of two evils is still evil”……

Therein rests a part of our challenge.

Additionally, perhaps we should be careful then, when we indict our fellow “conservatives” if and when they make the choice not to vote in any given election, or choose to vote for a person who is least offensive to them.

In their view, there may be no singular moral choice available to them.

Are there any among us who have not needed to compromise a vote or who have not made a pragmatic choice in the voting booth? Deciding to vote for a reason other than firm conviction?

And, perhaps we should be reluctant to call some of the “talk show” radio folks “just entertainers”.

They are no less or no more thoughtful commentators than those who write their opinions in political and religious columns in newspapers and magazines all across this country.

They all address the issues in their chosen formats with the talent the Lord provided them.

Some months ago I suggested on this that I may need to retire to my attic on election day, with my Bible, my Book of Concord, and the 12 gauge (or a hand gun whose caliber begins with the numeral “4″ or greater).

Organshoes has even suggested that she may join me in the attic. She further promised to bring the coffee and brownies.

Alas….. I confess I do not know just what I shall do on election day.

organshoes

You dismiss the talkers at your peril. Not peril for life or limb, but the peril of dishonesty and reckless dismissal. Again, Todd, you do not listen to Limbaugh, yet presume to say why he takes the stand he’s taken, and do so to the detriment of his character. You blasted a Christian for starting her post with talk of personal hatred. Well, how do Christians presume another’s intentions, without first hearing them? Again, folks: dump on whom you will, you’re still faced with an election without a conservative. No one is addressing that, except myself and another kerner. You keep putting lipstick on pigs, and smearing the lipstick on other pigs (or just smearing), but, candidates aside, what was your dream–your ideal–when this election season began? How does the field now measure up to that ideal? If a conservative rallies behind McCain, which to my mind he is perfectly free to do, he should at least have the guts to say he’s not the perfect, most preferred candidate, and that those who don’t desire to see him as President are as free to say so, and to work against it happening. But I’d leave Limbaugh out of it, if I were you. I wouldn’t be trying to characterize him or his comments or his positions, until you’ve listened to them and understood them; and certainly not until I searched my own motivations, intentions, and impulses in this most unusual election. The ugliness might well be found within the process and the current field, and not its critics. Scapegoating: it’s not just for Israelites.

organshoes

You dismiss the talkers at your peril. Not peril for life or limb, but the peril of dishonesty and reckless dismissal. Again, Todd, you do not listen to Limbaugh, yet presume to say why he takes the stand he’s taken, and do so to the detriment of his character. You blasted a Christian for starting her post with talk of personal hatred. Well, how do Christians presume another’s intentions, without first hearing them? Again, folks: dump on whom you will, you’re still faced with an election without a conservative. No one is addressing that, except myself and another kerner. You keep putting lipstick on pigs, and smearing the lipstick on other pigs (or just smearing), but, candidates aside, what was your dream–your ideal–when this election season began? How does the field now measure up to that ideal? If a conservative rallies behind McCain, which to my mind he is perfectly free to do, he should at least have the guts to say he’s not the perfect, most preferred candidate, and that those who don’t desire to see him as President are as free to say so, and to work against it happening. But I’d leave Limbaugh out of it, if I were you. I wouldn’t be trying to characterize him or his comments or his positions, until you’ve listened to them and understood them; and certainly not until I searched my own motivations, intentions, and impulses in this most unusual election. The ugliness might well be found within the process and the current field, and not its critics. Scapegoating: it’s not just for Israelites.

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Organshoes (@18), when I want to know what Rush has said (usually in response to a discussion like this), I go to his Web site and read the transcript. And Rush being who he is, he is frequently quoted in the media I read without my seeking him out (though when he inevitably complains that his remarks were taken out of context, I read the transcript). It’s the same with TV shows — I don’t watch them, but I know which ones are on, and frequently what the plot line for this season is.

That said, I’d like to know what exactly I said that you’re taking issue with. Maybe you’re right — or maybe, as with your characterization of my having “blasted” someone in another entry, you’re overstating a bit.

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Organshoes (@18), when I want to know what Rush has said (usually in response to a discussion like this), I go to his Web site and read the transcript. And Rush being who he is, he is frequently quoted in the media I read without my seeking him out (though when he inevitably complains that his remarks were taken out of context, I read the transcript). It’s the same with TV shows — I don’t watch them, but I know which ones are on, and frequently what the plot line for this season is.

That said, I’d like to know what exactly I said that you’re taking issue with. Maybe you’re right — or maybe, as with your characterization of my having “blasted” someone in another entry, you’re overstating a bit.

organshoes

The second and third paragraphs of your post, precisely. Okay. Not blasted. Just called one’s Christianity into question. I quote: ‘…not to belabor the point, but hating people doesn’t seem very Christian.’ No. I’m not overstating Rush’s position on this, anymore than you are correctly interpreting them. You’re making his actions nothing more than those of an egomaniac preserving his place, and not those of an egomaniac with convictions. I think you’re dead wrong on that. I think it’s an opinion based, once again, on conventional wisdom and/or presumption; not on astute observation or understanding. Attributing it to mere ego and self-interest is simply a way of dismissing what he says. It’s a common trap: not digging him personally, so not paying attention to his content.

organshoes

The second and third paragraphs of your post, precisely. Okay. Not blasted. Just called one’s Christianity into question. I quote: ‘…not to belabor the point, but hating people doesn’t seem very Christian.’ No. I’m not overstating Rush’s position on this, anymore than you are correctly interpreting them. You’re making his actions nothing more than those of an egomaniac preserving his place, and not those of an egomaniac with convictions. I think you’re dead wrong on that. I think it’s an opinion based, once again, on conventional wisdom and/or presumption; not on astute observation or understanding. Attributing it to mere ego and self-interest is simply a way of dismissing what he says. It’s a common trap: not digging him personally, so not paying attention to his content.

kerner

Mom? (@17) Are you in the attic again? Wait, don’t shoot! It’s only me. I remember the last time you headed up to the attic. Barry Goldwater had just been crushed. You thought the world was coming to an end. You didn’t come down again till 1980, and even then you weren’t sure that things were ok. Now you’re talking about going back up there. But look, the people who got the republic from the state it was in in 1964 to its much improved prospects in 1980 didn’t get us there by staying up in the attic. They did it by working every day to advance the things they believed in.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he’s a very good advocate for conservative principles, but I sometimes think he wrongly applies them. Lately I have been thinking that more often, and I hope he regains his compass.

Organshoes @18, I begin to wonder if it is a good idea to describe an individual person as “a conservative”, as if conservatism were some kind of club that you could join. Somebody recently wrote an article arguing that McCain was “conservative”, but not “A conservative”. The argument was that, while McCain believed in many conservative principles and usually acted on them, he was not “a” conservative because he was not part of the “conservative movement”. The trouble with that is that the “conservative movement” is not a formal organization.

Jon Poderetz has a written an article that describes the animosity between McCain and “conservative opinion leaders” here:

He says (I paraphrase) that a lot of the source of the animosity is that more of a struggle over form (and maybe leadership)than conservative substance. For example, he says that a major objection the “opinion leaders” have is that they want to fight liberals while McCain wants to make deals with them.

I guess I understand the desire to win through direct confrontation. I’ve been a lawyer for 27 years and I have had plenty of clients express a desire to utterly and humiliatingly defeat their opponents for all to see. I usually tell such people that such victories are rare and come at great cost. I also tell them that my greatest victories have been when I got my opponent to do what I wanted him to do, when my opponent thought it was HIS idea. Even better is getting my opponent to give me something of value for the privilege of doing what I want him to do.

But I digress. The point is that “deal making” may be less emotionally satisfying than the confrontational approach. But it is a legitimate tactic. I don’t think a politician, or a lawyer, is “selling out” if he negotiates instead of attacks (read “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, people!). I am not saying that I am convinced that McCain is such a good negotiator that he will always win by using this tactic. He may very well leave something on the table that he could have gotten by force from time to time. But I am saying that there is enough evidence to HOPE that his heart is in the right place and that he will generally do a good job of advancing conservative principles if he is given good counsel and the chance to try.

kerner

Mom? (@17) Are you in the attic again? Wait, don’t shoot! It’s only me. I remember the last time you headed up to the attic. Barry Goldwater had just been crushed. You thought the world was coming to an end. You didn’t come down again till 1980, and even then you weren’t sure that things were ok. Now you’re talking about going back up there. But look, the people who got the republic from the state it was in in 1964 to its much improved prospects in 1980 didn’t get us there by staying up in the attic. They did it by working every day to advance the things they believed in.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he’s a very good advocate for conservative principles, but I sometimes think he wrongly applies them. Lately I have been thinking that more often, and I hope he regains his compass.

Organshoes @18, I begin to wonder if it is a good idea to describe an individual person as “a conservative”, as if conservatism were some kind of club that you could join. Somebody recently wrote an article arguing that McCain was “conservative”, but not “A conservative”. The argument was that, while McCain believed in many conservative principles and usually acted on them, he was not “a” conservative because he was not part of the “conservative movement”. The trouble with that is that the “conservative movement” is not a formal organization.

Jon Poderetz has a written an article that describes the animosity between McCain and “conservative opinion leaders” here:

He says (I paraphrase) that a lot of the source of the animosity is that more of a struggle over form (and maybe leadership)than conservative substance. For example, he says that a major objection the “opinion leaders” have is that they want to fight liberals while McCain wants to make deals with them.

I guess I understand the desire to win through direct confrontation. I’ve been a lawyer for 27 years and I have had plenty of clients express a desire to utterly and humiliatingly defeat their opponents for all to see. I usually tell such people that such victories are rare and come at great cost. I also tell them that my greatest victories have been when I got my opponent to do what I wanted him to do, when my opponent thought it was HIS idea. Even better is getting my opponent to give me something of value for the privilege of doing what I want him to do.

But I digress. The point is that “deal making” may be less emotionally satisfying than the confrontational approach. But it is a legitimate tactic. I don’t think a politician, or a lawyer, is “selling out” if he negotiates instead of attacks (read “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu, people!). I am not saying that I am convinced that McCain is such a good negotiator that he will always win by using this tactic. He may very well leave something on the table that he could have gotten by force from time to time. But I am saying that there is enough evidence to HOPE that his heart is in the right place and that he will generally do a good job of advancing conservative principles if he is given good counsel and the chance to try.

http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Pr. Lehmann

What amuses me is the desire in this thread to defend Rush Limbaugh.

http://chaz-lehmann.livejournal.com Pr. Lehmann

What amuses me is the desire in this thread to defend Rush Limbaugh.

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Organshoes (@20), I must admit to being baffled. I didn’t “call [The Jones'] Christianity into question”! I said an action of hers* didn’t “seem very Christian”. Surely you understand the difference!

The former is an outrageous misreading of what I said in the latter, which was to point out that Christians have no place saying they “hate” people. Do you disagree? Should, in fact, Christians go around saying “I hate that person”? And if not, should we not correct our fellow Christians if they do? Or are we not allowed to point out sin anymore?

Furthermore, I did the very thing that The Jones did — she herself asked of Ann’s actions, “how can any of that be ‘Christian’.” But you have nothing to say about that. Or about her statement that she hates Ann Coulter. No, the only response is to the person who says — rather understatedly, I might add — “hating people doesn’t seem very Christian.” And for that, you claim I “blasted” her. Good grief!

(*I have no reason to know that The Jones is a female except that Organshoes referred to her as such.)

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Organshoes (@20), I must admit to being baffled. I didn’t “call [The Jones'] Christianity into question”! I said an action of hers* didn’t “seem very Christian”. Surely you understand the difference!

The former is an outrageous misreading of what I said in the latter, which was to point out that Christians have no place saying they “hate” people. Do you disagree? Should, in fact, Christians go around saying “I hate that person”? And if not, should we not correct our fellow Christians if they do? Or are we not allowed to point out sin anymore?

Furthermore, I did the very thing that The Jones did — she herself asked of Ann’s actions, “how can any of that be ‘Christian’.” But you have nothing to say about that. Or about her statement that she hates Ann Coulter. No, the only response is to the person who says — rather understatedly, I might add — “hating people doesn’t seem very Christian.” And for that, you claim I “blasted” her. Good grief!

(*I have no reason to know that The Jones is a female except that Organshoes referred to her as such.)

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Organshoes (@20), “the second and third paragraphs of your post” isn’t very precise. Do you take issue with my statement that “Rush couldn’t bear to change his mind and support McCain”? From what I’ve read, I think he’d agree. Do you disagree when I said that “it’s not in Rush’s character to make nice or hint that he was wrong”? If so, please point to a transcript of his in which he does just that. Do you disagree with my assertion that “he’s doing everything he can to make sure McCain either loses the nomination”? I got that impression by reading quotes of his, and in locating them in his transcripts, I still have the same opinion. … And so on.

Of course, saying that I characterized Rush as “an egomaniac preserving his place” isn’t the most charitable take on what I said, but letting that stand, let’s look at this recent quote of Rush’s:

In fact, folks, you know I don’t like to talk about myself, but if there is a maverick out there today, it is I who am the maverick. You talk about swimming against the tide. I have the Drive-Bys celebrating already, wait ’til you hear the sounds bites of my demise. I have other radio talk show hosts salivating for my demise. I have some in the Republican punditry salivating. I’m not trying to get sympathy here, don’t misunderstand. It’s always been this way. It’s when you’re at the top, everybody is shooting at you. It is what it is. But I’m the maverick. If there’s a maverick out there, it is I.

Yes, how I have misinterpreted Mr. Limbaugh. And that’s just from the 2nd transcript I read. That guy says “I don’t like to talk about myself” so much, it’s a bit silly. I’m sure the fact that his face appears as much as it does on his Web site really chagrins him, as well.

I also found amusing your dichotomy of “conventional wisdom and/or presumption” vs. “astute observation or understanding”. I wonder what opinion could I form that disagreed with Rush Limbaugh that could not be summarily dismissed as being based on “presumption” or informed by the “drive-by media”? For someone getting so upset at my “presumpt[ive]” analysis of Rush’s strategy, how do you presume to know so much about what I know about Rush?

And as for my supposedly “not digging him personally, [and] so not paying attention to his content,” what do I know about the man except his content? The man is his content! He’s a guy with opinions and a microphone — if he had neither, I’d never have heard of him, much less formed an opinion about him. You really do dish out lots of presumptive assertions about me in an attempt to chastise me for making presumptive assertions.

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Organshoes (@20), “the second and third paragraphs of your post” isn’t very precise. Do you take issue with my statement that “Rush couldn’t bear to change his mind and support McCain”? From what I’ve read, I think he’d agree. Do you disagree when I said that “it’s not in Rush’s character to make nice or hint that he was wrong”? If so, please point to a transcript of his in which he does just that. Do you disagree with my assertion that “he’s doing everything he can to make sure McCain either loses the nomination”? I got that impression by reading quotes of his, and in locating them in his transcripts, I still have the same opinion. … And so on.

Of course, saying that I characterized Rush as “an egomaniac preserving his place” isn’t the most charitable take on what I said, but letting that stand, let’s look at this recent quote of Rush’s:

In fact, folks, you know I don’t like to talk about myself, but if there is a maverick out there today, it is I who am the maverick. You talk about swimming against the tide. I have the Drive-Bys celebrating already, wait ’til you hear the sounds bites of my demise. I have other radio talk show hosts salivating for my demise. I have some in the Republican punditry salivating. I’m not trying to get sympathy here, don’t misunderstand. It’s always been this way. It’s when you’re at the top, everybody is shooting at you. It is what it is. But I’m the maverick. If there’s a maverick out there, it is I.

Yes, how I have misinterpreted Mr. Limbaugh. And that’s just from the 2nd transcript I read. That guy says “I don’t like to talk about myself” so much, it’s a bit silly. I’m sure the fact that his face appears as much as it does on his Web site really chagrins him, as well.

I also found amusing your dichotomy of “conventional wisdom and/or presumption” vs. “astute observation or understanding”. I wonder what opinion could I form that disagreed with Rush Limbaugh that could not be summarily dismissed as being based on “presumption” or informed by the “drive-by media”? For someone getting so upset at my “presumpt[ive]” analysis of Rush’s strategy, how do you presume to know so much about what I know about Rush?

And as for my supposedly “not digging him personally, [and] so not paying attention to his content,” what do I know about the man except his content? The man is his content! He’s a guy with opinions and a microphone — if he had neither, I’d never have heard of him, much less formed an opinion about him. You really do dish out lots of presumptive assertions about me in an attempt to chastise me for making presumptive assertions.

http://www.geneveith.com Veith

@17 & @21: You Kerners are something else, Ma AND boy. Thanks for your vivid evocations. Taking refuge in the attic, gun in hand, with the Bible and the Book of Concord close at hand, does have its attractions!

http://www.geneveith.com Veith

@17 & @21: You Kerners are something else, Ma AND boy. Thanks for your vivid evocations. Taking refuge in the attic, gun in hand, with the Bible and the Book of Concord close at hand, does have its attractions!

The Jones

Organshoes: “You blasted a Christian for starting her post with talk of personal hatred.”

HIS post! HIS post. I’m a dude. I understand the mistake, but I will now counteract any femininity that has been communicated in my posts with a heafty dose of overdone masculinity: I play football. I drive motorcycles. I can bench 300 lbs. I killed a tiger with my bear hands. I spar with Rocky Balboa for fun. All my emotions can be expressed with about 2 varieties of grunts. I’m Rambo’s daddy. I was brought into this world on a bear-skin rug. Chuck Norris. Video Games. The Marines…. Whew…. I think that did it.

The Jones

Organshoes: “You blasted a Christian for starting her post with talk of personal hatred.”

HIS post! HIS post. I’m a dude. I understand the mistake, but I will now counteract any femininity that has been communicated in my posts with a heafty dose of overdone masculinity: I play football. I drive motorcycles. I can bench 300 lbs. I killed a tiger with my bear hands. I spar with Rocky Balboa for fun. All my emotions can be expressed with about 2 varieties of grunts. I’m Rambo’s daddy. I was brought into this world on a bear-skin rug. Chuck Norris. Video Games. The Marines…. Whew…. I think that did it.

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Yes, where was it I got the idea that Rush was, as you put it, an “egomaniac”? Hmm … Was it this Web page?:

Now, look, I’m not taking any of this personally. But I don’t know how I can not be at least on the list of consideration for TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year. … I don’t want to brag. I don’t want to go through the whole list of things here, but it is I who have single-handedly turned the Democrat nomination process on its ear. … I single-handedly, ladies and gentlemen, turned a smear attempt by the United States Senate Majority Leader into a slap-down of the United States Senate. The Drive-By Media didn’t cover it. The influence that this program exerts throughout the political process, the optimism this program spreads throughout the country.

My, such humility! It would, indeed, take an extreme amount of astute observation to find anything egomaniacal in that statement.

http://www.cockahoop.com/ tODD

Yes, where was it I got the idea that Rush was, as you put it, an “egomaniac”? Hmm … Was it this Web page?:

Now, look, I’m not taking any of this personally. But I don’t know how I can not be at least on the list of consideration for TIME Magazine’s Person of the Year. … I don’t want to brag. I don’t want to go through the whole list of things here, but it is I who have single-handedly turned the Democrat nomination process on its ear. … I single-handedly, ladies and gentlemen, turned a smear attempt by the United States Senate Majority Leader into a slap-down of the United States Senate. The Drive-By Media didn’t cover it. The influence that this program exerts throughout the political process, the optimism this program spreads throughout the country.

My, such humility! It would, indeed, take an extreme amount of astute observation to find anything egomaniacal in that statement.

tODD, It’s obvious you don’t get Lumbaugh’s basic shtick. So be it. You’re still not not arguing substance, but style. kerner, I don’t doubt that Mccain has certain conservative leanings, but they don’t amount to an acceptable package for conservatives. Embryonic stem cell research funding is one major issue that rarely gets mentioned (this is my second mention of it) when McCain’s ‘solid pro-life record’ gets touted. Perhaps we should be more accurate and say he is pro-fetus; embryos, however, are negotiable. So, it boils down to not so much to the art of compromise, as the art of the broom, and sweeping the inconvenient truths under the rug. Never has the concept of the lesser of two evils been more apparent to me than in this election. And to Pr. Lehman and your astonishment at all the Limbaugh defense: well, I didn’t bring him up. Our host did. With alll due respect: duh.

organshoes

tODD, It’s obvious you don’t get Lumbaugh’s basic shtick. So be it. You’re still not not arguing substance, but style. kerner, I don’t doubt that Mccain has certain conservative leanings, but they don’t amount to an acceptable package for conservatives. Embryonic stem cell research funding is one major issue that rarely gets mentioned (this is my second mention of it) when McCain’s ‘solid pro-life record’ gets touted. Perhaps we should be more accurate and say he is pro-fetus; embryos, however, are negotiable. So, it boils down to not so much to the art of compromise, as the art of the broom, and sweeping the inconvenient truths under the rug. Never has the concept of the lesser of two evils been more apparent to me than in this election. And to Pr. Lehman and your astonishment at all the Limbaugh defense: well, I didn’t bring him up. Our host did. With alll due respect: duh.